Approximately 3-4 pages (try not to exceed 4 pages, excluding the title, references, and table pages)
Selection of the Articles (Level 2 heading): approximately 2 pages
Provide an overview of the literature search process. Describe your method of literature review, and take 2 to 3 sentences to describe what search engines and what keys words you used. Also briefly note how you narrowed down your selected research study articles
Using a table, provide a succinct summary including the purpose and findings of the study. i.e., Table 1 reports the summary of the selected literature. You need at least 7 research articles within your table.
Report the evidence hierarchy (See page 424, Figure 15-1 in textbook).
What are the levels of evidence hierarchy? i.e. The evidence hierarchy of each article were analyzed. Using the Rating System for Hierarchy of Evidence provided by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (as cited in Schmidt & Brown, 2015), one article was a Level III, three were Level VI, and one was Level VII. xxx
Article Critiques (Level 2 heading) – approximately 2 pages
Critique the body of research on the topic as a whole: describe the methodological strengths and limitations of the current research
Do you see any problems or shortcomings in the methods?
Do you see any strengths of the articles?
Are the results able to be generalized to other (clinical) settings?
Do their results have clinical (EBP) implications?
Provide the conclusion statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work. In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.
References (bold/center – level 1 heading): Separate page
Include all that you used/cited in the draft
Table: Attach the table after the references page.
See the sample table format – No page no font restriction
Table Title: Summary of the Articles and Evidence Hierarchy
| Title of the Articles | Authors | Purpose | Methods | Findings/Conclusions | Level of Evidence* |
| No quotation mark | Use APA format citation
Authors (year) – last name only |
Be consistent
i.e., To test To explore
|
report the research design
Data collection and procedure |
Significant findings | Report the level of evidence and the rationale |
* Rating System for Hierarchy of Evidence provided by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt
Grading Rubric for Validation Paper
| Category |
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
Possible Points
|
|
Article selection/ Summary Overview |
At least 7 articles Process of the article selection is clearly and specifically presented
Conducted a thorough review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, Synthesized the summary of the research findings and referenced table and accurate levels of evidence
|
At least 7 articles
Process of the article selection is presented
Conducted a good review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic Summarized the major highlights of the research findings
|
Process of the article selection is presented, but limited
Conducted a fair review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, Provided a limited summary of the research findings
|
Conducted a poor review of the research-based literature concerning the selected topic, Process of the article selection is not provided
|
25 |
|
Table |
Complete (purpose, method, findings and conclusions) and accurate evidence hierarchy evaluation
Neatness of the Table including Table title |
Complete (purpose, method, findings and conclusions) with information of relevant hierarchy evaluation
Neatness of the Table including Table title
|
Unclear summary and incomplete hierarchy evaluation; Neatness of the Table including Table title |
No summary table reported |
20
|
|
Article critique |
Accurately and effectively critiqued the body of research, clearly identified and described the methodological strengths and limitations of the current research | Most of the research critique was accurate, lacked depth/insight into strengths and limitations of current research
|
Incomplete critique of the research findings, missed major strengths and limitations of current research | Lacks critique of research findings, lacked strengths and limitations of current research |
35 |
| Organization of Paper and Writing Style | Exemplary;
Ideas well organized and logically presented, Effective transitions from one idea to another and effective summaries with integration of ideas; Sentence structure clear, correct grammar and punctuation, no spelling errors |
Proficient
Clear organization of main points Adequate transitions from one idea to another and adequate summary of ideas; adequate sentence structure, minimal grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors |
Incomplete
Ideas not developed clearly throughout entire paper; Discussion lacks details at times, Confusing transitions from one idea to anther and summaries lack integration of ideas; Inadequate sentence structure, several grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors |
Absent
Lacks organization and flow; Lacks discussion of ideas – ideas merely stated without discussion; Lacks transitions from one idea to another and lacks summaries of ideas; Poor sentence structure, numerous grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors |
10
|
| APA Format | Exemplary;
Solicited and referenced more than an adequate number of resources, citations cited accurately, reference list correct; Professional appearance of paper, adheres to APA format
|
Proficient
Solicited and referenced fewer than expected resources, 2-3 mistakes noted with citations and in reference list; Paper legible, 2-3 errors noted in APA format |
Incomplete
Solicited and referenced suboptimal number of resources, 4-6 errors noted with citations and in reference list; Unprofessional appearance, 4-6 errors noted in APA format |
Absent
Solicited and referenced too few resources; >6errors noted with citations and in reference list; Unprofessional appearance, >6 errors noted in APA format |
10
|
